1934 Goudey--PSA vs. SGC Pop Totals--Some Interesting Comparisons

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Crandell

I thought it would be interesting to take a pre-war set and look at the population totals by grade. I arbitrarily picked 1934 Goudey as it is one I collect.

PSA


Total population 9368
PSA 10s 13(.14%)
PSA 9s 126(1.35%)
PSA 8s 1227(13.1%)
PSA 7s 1566 (16.7%)

Percentage PSA 7 or better 31.3%

SGC


Total Population 1288
SGC 10(incl 98 and 100) 2(.15%)
SGC 9 13(1.0%)
SGC 8(incl 88 and 92) 59(4.6%)
SGC 7(incl 84 and 86) 119(9.2%)

Percentage SGC 7 or better 15.0%

Conclusions: While it may be true that PSA gets a higher percentage of high end cards and that cards submitted to SGC are more by "true collectors", I think that given that PSA has graded twice as much 7 or higher is indicative of more lenient grading overall.

While the two highest value cards and the highest pops in each set are the Gehrigs(although one may be able to make an argument for the Foxx on price), it is likely that in high grade that the next highest values are the low pop commons. PSA has two pop 6 commons in 8 or better(#4 English and #24 Berge). Given the number of collectors trying to put this set together in psa 8 or better, I would value these at least at $6,000 as there was a pop 8 common which went for $5,500 and the Frederick(pop 7) recently went for $4,250. By means of comparison, the higher pop commons would go for close to smr in 8($450-$750--there are pops in 8 of 20 or more).

One other aside--for the two pop 6s SGC also has these as two of their lower pop cards with no SGC 8s or better.

Thus, my conclusion from this is what is lower pop today will likely be lower pop years from now and given the growing numbers of collectors trying to put this set together in 8 or better, values will grow.

Cmoking and Mike Murray who know the set extremely well as well as others will no doubt have more to add here.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

<I think that given that PSA has graded twice as much 7 or higher is indicative of more lenient grading overall>

I don't see any foundation in your data for that statement.

With the popularity of the PSA Registry, true, more cards are being sent to PSA, but what's to say they are not a better grade to begin with? You can't really make a statement about leniency without knowing the condition of the cards being submitted. A better way to document "leniency" would be to submit 10 of the same 34G's to each company and compare the results.



Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

I remember doing a similar type of PSA vs SGC grading analysis a while back, and I recall getting the same type of results - that PSA has a much higher percentage of PSA 7s and PSA 8s than SGC 84s and SGC 88s. But I was not sure about what that tells us. People who favor PSA will surely have a valid reason for the disparity that may make sense. And people who favor SGC will surely argue you can't argue with the numbers. If the total submission numbers were closer, instead of the 9:1 difference, I think there would be no question that SGC is tougher, but the 9:1 ratio really throws a big wrench into it.

Here are the arguments for both sides as I see it (the PSA side is a longer argument because PSA needs to look past the numbers, while SGC's argument seems clear cut. it's not that I'm siding with PSA, just saying this is why I wrote so much more for PSA's side):

SGC argument:
Just look at the numbers, it should be clear that SGC is tougher and not as lenient in giving 7s and 8s than PSA. There is no way to overcome the numerical differences no matter how you want to spin it for PSA. We can end the argument here.

PSA argument:
Imagine this hypothetical decision by a potential seller of a high grade Goudey card.
The potential seller has a NM/MT card 53 Babe Ruth card and wants to sell it. Let's assume he believes PSA and SGC have equal grading standards, and a PSA 8 does equal a SGC 88. So what is his decision? It's a simple economic decision - get it graded by PSA into a PSA 8 holder and get a lot more money. It's been proven over and over that PSA high grade cards in Goudeys get more money than SGC high grade cards (show me an example where you have the same card in the same grade where the SGC card went higher - don't just show me an example of a SGC 92 of a tough card to find if you can't find an equivalent sale of a PSA 8, because there won't be a good comparison). One of the major reasons people get their cards graded is to sell them, so that's why PSA cards get the higher graded.

PSA registry argument:
A main reason is PSA started the Registry and was so successful at it, that many people who are interested in high-graded cards are involved in the Registry. Take a look at the number of people with PSA 5 and higher quality sets on the PSA registry and compare that to SGC - it's a landslide (stuckmeyer (sp?) has a fantastic collection - but he's really alone in the SGC registry...personally I wish there were more like him). So even if you found a raw NM or NM/MT card, you would want to get it into a PSA holder if you are in the registry.

more PSA argument:
Don't forget about the re-submissions. It's a vicious cycle, people see the high price of 8s and 9s, you are definitely going to get people who crack out a card and resubmit over and over again. That will distort population numbers. It's not nearly as economically worthwhile to crack out a PSA 4 to try to get a PSA 5 as it is to crack out a PSA 7 in order to get a PSA 8.

Fees: I'm not 100% sure about the fees, is it correct that PSA is slightly more expensive than SGC? If so, this may mean if you have a VG/EX card (where the price difference is a lot smaller between a SGC or PSA graded card of the same grade), it may be economically useful to submit to SGC.

My experience and personal opinion:
I have come across a bunch of Goudey PSA 6, 7 8 and SGC 80, 84 cards in the past year. Much fewer SGC cards than PSA, but that is to be expected. My personal opinion is that they are close. I have cracked and submitted all of my high-grade SGC cards and sent them to PSA. From my data (about 20 cards in SGC 80 - SGC 92), they have come back roughly the same grade in PSA holders (the same CANNOT be said for other grading compaines). A SGC 86 Pepper Martin came back PSA 7. A 1934 Goudey Don Hurst SGC 92 came back as PSA 8 (Jim, this is the card I traded to you). A SGC 86 Jack Russell came back as a PSA 8. A SGC 84 Leroy Parmalee came back as a PSA 6. A SGC 80 Mark Koenig came back as a PSA 7 (I almost threw up when I saw this, way overgraded, I sold it on ebay, and it only got PSA 6 money as everyone knew it was overgraded by the look of the card). These are just off the top of my head.

Testing for lower grades:
Along with my PSA 6-8 1933 Goudey set, I am also building a lower graded set (why? I don't know, just love the set). In that lower graded set, I am much more willing to buy SGC and GAI cards, whereas I am very careful for the higher graded cards. I have about 12 of each, including a SGC 40 #149 Ruth and a GAI 3.5 #181 Ruth. I have been thinking of cracking them all and submitting them to PSA to see what happens in the lower grade. I'll post the results if I ever do that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

Youre statistical analysis is very loose. There are a lot of other factors to consider in using the samples you've selected. Some of what you're saying makes sense but judging leniency of grading is quite a stretch.

[Archive]

Posted By: WP

For info. An SGC 88 #53 Ruth was sold recently for 55,000(Legacy Sports) privately. The last PSA 8 sold fo under $40,000.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Crandell

Cmoking,

Great stuff and insights.

The argument I think carries the most weight for PSA is that there are a significant number of collectors looking to put together high-grade sets.

Still, the sample size is pretty large and PSA has twice as large a percentage in psa 7 or higher. This I think is suggestive of somewhat tougher grading standards over time by SGC but it is no means conclusive.

Also not sure I buy the argument that if you sell a high grade pre-war HOF that you get more for it in a PSA holder--commons in 8-unquestionably-but as WP points out, not necessarily so with stars.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Another factor, and I apologize if it was already mentioned, is that I think SGC has become stricter over time. If that is so, and I think there is solid support for this theory including the fact that SGC will not automatically reholder its "older" cards, then that makes it even more difficult to make comparisons based on aggregate pop report numbers.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

This comparison is not a "vintage" comparison by the standards of this board, but I think it is still useful when comparing SGC vs PSA when it comes to Goudeys. It may not be as analogous to T206s and other pre-WWI cards where SGC has more of an inroad.

In the last Mastro auction, there was a PSA 8 and a SGC 92 1951 Bowman Willie Mays. The PSA 8 went for $11,959 and the SGC 92 went for $8,983 (these are numbers before Mastro's buyer's premium).

http://www.mastronet.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=49559&CurrentRow=1

http://www.mastronet.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=49569&CurrentRow=1

This is a great comparison in my mind because of it was in the same auction by the same auctioneer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Craig Lipman

I think the sales results of the 33 Goudey Ruth and 51 Bowman Mays
are examples of collectors buying the card and not the plastic. The psa 8 Mays has greater eye appeal than the sgc 92. This is not to say that psa will out sell similarily graded sgc cards. I think it depends on the individual card.

The psa 8 Ruth #53 Ruth that sold for 40k was an overgraded example that had a large printing flaw on the front and very poor eye appeal. I was suprised it even went for as high as it did. I would doubt a high end psa 8 Ruth #53 would sell for that low.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Which Ruth PSA 8 #53 are we talking about? I have the following sales written down in my spreadsheet: $52K and $43K, but I don't know if I included the buyer's premium on those. If anyone has a link to the auctions, I'd appreciate it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Craig Lipman

I was talking about the Ruth from Branca's collection that sold in 4/05 Mastro for 43615. Mastro's usually exuberant description of the card was tempered by talk of corner wear and printing "impurities". So that is what that blotch of red in the yellow background is called.

[Archive]

Posted By: Howie

There's 36 listings on the PSA set registry for 1934 Goudey. It includes twelve complete sets with seven averaging over a grade of 7. A total of 2341 cards are listed. There's three listings on the SGC set registry with one near set in high grade and a total of 132 cards listed. They both grade with similar standards but cards are going to be sent into the grading company where they're collected the most.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

I have seen that card in person, doesn't look bad at all. IMO, it is a decent 8.

[Archive]

Posted By: WP

The results of the T206 Magie error in the last Mastro favor SGC.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

good example. A T206 example, but a good example nonetheless.

[Archive]

Posted By: WP

http://www.mastronet.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=49071&CurrentRow=1

http://www.mastronet.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=49346&CurrentRow=1

[Archive]

Posted By: FYS

The number of resubmittals to PSA distorts the NM and NM/MT numbers. I think one thing that would be hard for even Joe Orlando to disagree with is that SGC is more consistent & accurate. I would not say that SGC is really any harder overall, but I do see many more PSA WTF grades (both high and low). PSA consistency or lack thereof has really turned me off over time. The early serial numbers are over graded. The initial competition from SGC actually caused them to be more strict with their grading. Then the competition with BGS caused them to undergrade for a period. The competion with BGS has now carried into questionable ethical practices with much more prevelent Gem Mint grades. Particularly with the high volume submitters. During this period (last 2-3 years), PSA consistency has really wavered, which ties into the large number of resubmittals.

I wonder if PSA's inconsistency is really part of their business plan to create more revenue with resubmittals?

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Crisafulli

"The number of resubmittals to PSA distorts the NM and NM/MT numbers."

This is VERY true, but not just at the NM and NM/MT numbers, unfortunately.

I can't really speak to 1933 or 34 Goudeys, because I've only had a handful graded from each set. But I can absolutely speak to 1938 Goudeys. There have been under 2000 of these cards graded by PSA, and at least 125 of them have passed through my hands in the last year. I have resubmitted several of them, multiple times, and I have a large stack of flips that I will eventually send back to PSA. Many of them originally graded in the 2-3-4 range, and have come back higher after multiple submissions.

Furthermore, I myself have crossed a decent number of PSA Diamond Stars into SGC holders, and never sent back the PSA flips. They're sitting in my card room.

I'm working on a response to this thread that illustrates some of the "low pop" issues with respect to 1938 Goudeys, but felt compelled to add my two cents to the quote above. There is absoltuely no question in my mind that the PSA pop reports - at least on 1930s gum cards - are seriously flawed due to multiple subs.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Al,

Interesting comments.

I have underestimated the effect of resubmissions as I have done comparatively little myself.

I have experienced widely disparate grades however when I did resubmit.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

"I wonder if PSA's inconsistency is really part of their business plan to create more revenue with resubmittals?"

I think the much more likely explanation is the huge volume (and corresponding lack of time to really study most cards) and also the fact that the cards get graded by different people. In fact, I am amazed they are as consistent as they are in light of the number of cards they grade.

[Archive]

Posted By: FYS

"I think the much more likely explanation is the huge volume (and corresponding lack of time to really study most cards) and also the fact that the cards get graded by different people. In fact, I am amazed they are as consistent as they are in light of the number of cards they grade."

Peter: It sounds like the PSA inconsistency is acceptable to yourself and should be considered normal. Is that correct?

This thread looks like a good experiment for Dav. I would pay money to see the following results:

1. Dav picks two groups of 34 Goudeys. Lets say 30 cards per group.
2. One group goes to PSA under his name. The next group goes to SGC under his name. Grades are then documented.
3. Cards are then cracked out and the exact groups are resubmitted to PSA with a large submitters lot and to SGC with a large submitters lot. Grades are then documented.
4. Cards are then cracked out and the lots are exchanged i.e. the orginal PSA lot goes to SGC under Dav's name and the original SGC lot goes to PSA in Dav's name. Grades are then documented.
5. Cards are then cracked and the same lots are sent to PSA and SGC under large submitters.
6. Full results are then shared to everyone. Would be some good reading material.
7. Actually Crandell is to well known. The lots should go into PSA and SGC under a rookie submitters name.

Anybody else find this interesting or just stupid?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Even if you have a lot of submissions and lot of differnt graders, if they all have to pass thru at least 2 graders, they should be less variation, no matter how many graders you have. They only reason to have a large variation if you ahve double checking of grades is that the second grader is looking at the first grade, being lazy and letting that grade influence his judgement

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: FYS

Jim,

To give you an idea of the true PSA resubmttal distortion/errors in the population reports.

The real ratio of PSA graded cards to SGC cards is about 6 to 6.5 to 1. Certain issues will vary, but that is a good rule of thumb. If an issue has a population 10X that of SGC, I do not think it is unreasonable to state that 30%-40% of that number is false due to double/triple/quadruple submittals.

You still get a good idea of the condition rarity cards from the population reports.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Crisafulli

"You still get a good idea of the condition rarity cards from the population reports."

I agree with this, but only with cards in the pre-Topps era. I just think there are way too many ungraded cards out there, say, post-1953, to get a true picture of condition rarity from pop reports.

My personal opinion is that SGC is a far better grading company that any of the others, for about a million reasons. However, I do use PSA for two sets - 1938 Goudey and 1953 Topps. No point in getting into my reasons, as they're not relevant to this thread. But I can tell you that with the cards I collect, I've cracked plenty of cards out of PSA holders and had them come back with lower SGC grades. I have NEVER cracked an SGC holder and had it come back with a lower PSA grade. Not once. Obviously, I can't speak for anyone else - that's just my personal experience.

However, to respond to Jim's last post, I definitely think that resubs are an issue. I buy the card. But if I'm getting the card slabbed, I want it in a holder that I can agree with. So I'll resubmit it until it gets as close as I think it can get. And the set that I collect more vigorously than any other - 1938 Goudey - I am responsible for probably 7% of the cards they've graded. For the most part, I completed the set with raw cards and had them graded myself. Since then, I've bought many graded examples, sold some, kept some, and built a set that I'm reasonably happy with.

All that said, I've been trying to understand how the pop reports relate to true condition rarity. Having bought so many raw examples of that set, I think I'm in a pretty unique position of being able to compare my own experiences with condition rarity with what the pop reports reflect, and I can say that with very few exceptions, the PSA pop reports for 1938 Goudey are a good reflection of condition rarity.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Al : "I have NEVER cracked an SGC holder and had it come back with a lower PSA grade. Not once."

Interesting. How many have you done?

If this is true as a general rule, then there is a simple and easy arbitrage set up for anyone willing to buy SGC (at cheaper prices than their PSA counterpart), crack and submit to PSA, and resell the card and profit.

[Archive]

Posted By: FYS

"If this is true as a general rule, then there is a simple and easy arbitrage set up for anyone willing to buy SGC (at cheaper prices than their PSA counterpart), crack and submit to PSA, and resell the card and profit."

There are people that do this. In particular one that I am aware of is glibisher (eBay). All in all, I will bet you money that it is not profitable enough to make it worth the time an effort. You know why, because the market is efficient:>)

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Crisafulli

I guess I've probably done 25-30, perhaps a few more. Not a ton, but like I said, I'm speaking from my personal experience and not making rules for every collector.

That said, I couldn't make a statement one way or another as to whether this is profitable or not. I just don't collect that way. I also don't collect in particularly high grade. Basically, I decide what set I want to collect, then I decide HOW I want to collect it (graded/raw, how to display, what type of companion pieces, etc.), and then I dig in. I don't buy and sell cards for a profit. I do sell cards, but only stuff I don't need or have upgraded, and only to get money to buy more cards.

I do know of one dealer that buys Global and SGC cards and submits them to PSA prior to selling. He calls it "stealing". I also know of two dealers that say that the trend toward SGC is growing to the point where they're making more money on SGC cards than on PSA.

I tend to think that for the casual eBayer, the PSA registry makes the PSA cards more liquid. For the serious dealer, their grader of choice (or if they choose to sell raw) is driven by their key customers. I think that - except for registry-driven cards - the concept that one grading company makes a card more valuable than another's is a ludicrous one.

But I just hijacked this thread, so that's all I'll say on this.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike P.

Let me know when the FYS plan goes into action so I can buy into PSA and SGC. I have read info where this has been sort of done on a smaller level but I definitely think a larger submission would garner better data. I think 30 cards is too small a #. Maybe 75-100 per lot.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Al,

I have to disagree with something you said:

"there are way too many ungraded cards out there post-1953 to get a true picture of condition rarity".

I disagree--because the sample sizes are much bigger I think for 50s and 60s sets you get an even better picture. In 1962 Topps why is Don Landrum a pop 1 in psa 8 and better and other commons as high as 40(a guess)? In 1955 Topps why is Art Fowler a pop 17 and others as high as 70. I could go through every set. And it is reflected in what you pay as well. Cards with lower pops in the 50s can easily go for 10-20X smr. Heck, the Landrum would probably go for $2,000.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Crisafulli

Jim:

I figured you'd disagree with that statement. I know that you buy into the concept of the "low pop common", as do many other people. I don't.

I guess I'll give you that some of the more extreme examples, like the one you mentioned where the card was a pop 1 in PSA 8, you're probably onto something. But some of the low-pop PSA 8 1953 and 1961 Topps cards I've sold in the last two years or so were cards I found very easily - raw - and submitted myself. I just think that there are two many high-grade raw collections out there still.

I know we disagree on this, that's cool. A lot of people disagree with me on it. Again, it's my perspective since so much of what I buy is raw.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Al,

Great to disagree--I would be forever indebted if you found some 1953 raw cards that would grade 8--It might save me $2K per card.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: WP

Jim,
Have you ever considered the idea that some of these commons might be nothing more than statistical anomolies? Consider the 52 T# 80 Whemier and 33 Goudey #3 Critz. Both of these cards were considered the toughest or next to toughest commons in their respective sets. Now they are low pop cards but not very lop pop cards anymore.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

I tend to agree with Jim that so many PSA cards have been graded that the fact that certain cards have relatively low pops suggests at least something about their overall scarcity in high grade. Most likely, what it suggests in most cases is that the cards tended to be cut off center because of their placement on the sheet. If that is the case, that distribution is likely to be reflected in the raw cards still out there, whatever percentage one believes that to be. EDITED TO ADD As just one (sorry, non "vintage" by your folks' definition) example, I am quite familiar with the 65T Charlie Smith having built that set, and nearly all the examples, even the ones that graded 8, are off center.)

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

WP,

I have considered it but given the totals graded do not think it is that.

You are right though that earlier on collectors paid huge prices for a certain card. Correct me if I am wrong but those two are still lower pop cards--probably among the lowest but when the pop was 1 or 2 you had them going for ridiculous prices.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

One thing I don't understand about the fascination with low pop reports, why? They certainly are not going to be HOFers or tougher commons because a higher percentage are graded. Sometimes commons have a low pop because it is a gamble whether to even have the card grade (it may cost more than the results).
I would guess that once a card gets highlighted as low pop more of that card will get submitted, thus channging the results.

I just think it is funny that people used and pay asterinomiacal price for "low Pop" cards and high grade cards, especially modern cards. It's your money do what you like, it certainly is not the way I would spend it.

One other question for set regestiry people out there. How many people do you actually know tha are in "competition" on the set of your chose. I am on the SGC set regestiry for T206 and T202s, of the 40 some on those sets I only personally know one and correspond with maybe 5 of them. The ones I know collect higher grade seets then my self and I tend to trade with them my higher grades. It kind of fascinates me that people go after these "cyber" sets and have little to no one that is actually "fascinated" with the end results.

One more thought about high graded cards and people that collect them, They have a hell of lot more money than most collectors. take a T206 7 (about $300), with that $300 you could buy a nice lot of 20 commons for that prices. I know I would rather have 20 cards than on really nice one. If I had $6000 I could have 20 7's, but I also could have half of the seet by than.

It's always fun to pay for the holder.

Just me,

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Lee,

And with $6,000 you could have 2.75 T206 psa 8s. The last several psa 8s on ebay have gone for between $2,000-$2,600 and these are for higher pop ones. Low pop maybe you could buy one.

To each his own. I like high grade cards but there are people who are just as happy with lower grade.

Time will tell on the pops. The way it has been the low pops for all sets through the mid 1960s have been getting more difficult and more expensive and they are not coming out of the woodwork.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

"One other question for set regestiry people out there. How many people do you actually know tha are in "competition" on the set of your chose."

I have done trades or transactions with 12 different guys in the 1933 Goudey registry. I've also done transactions with 2 other guys who are trying to complete sets but haven't listed themselves on the registry. I don't consider any of us in competition. Most of the guys I've talked to are just trying to complete the set to their satisfaction - be that a goal of PSA 5s or a goal of PSA 8s.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

While many registry guys are competitive I have traded and bought and sold with many guys on the 65 Topps reg set. Except for the (at most) 5 guys that are really competitive with that set most just want to complete the set.


as for the C Smith card 22 one is on ebay as we speak and it is at 700.00. It has the T/B centering issue that almost all have. Is it worth 700.00? Not to me. I will live with my 7 in which i paid 30.00 for.

I collect mainly raw, have submitted 1x to PSA and collect 2 sets graded.

mars attacks and the 65 set.


Collect for fun and you will never have a problem.


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Steve,

Great to hear your imput and welcome from the "dark side".

While this is a pre-war board, population anomalies affect both pre-war and post-war sets.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

"Time will tell on the pops. The way it has been the low pops for all sets through the mid 1960s have been getting more difficult and more expensive and they are not coming out of the woodwork."

Sorry to go modern here, but my 1957 Topps Baseball research:

PSA submissions 2004... 2015 cards per month

PSA submissions Jan 2005 -June 2005... 1400 cards per month

PSA submissions July - Sept. 2005....1100 cards per month.

So for 1957 at least, the "woodwork" is drying up.



Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: WP

Very scientific research Frank.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Hi Jim:

Thanks for this interesting analysis. It’s one I have performed myself on other sets over the years.

I am sorry I was not able to respond to this post sooner and many good points have already been made. I have collected high-grade Goudey cards for close to 20 years and I can tell you unequivocally:

1.The PSA set registry has changed everything and its here to stay. I once had all of my pre-war cards in SGC holders but sent them to PSA so I could have a realistic chance of completing a graded set with all the cards in one type of holder.
2.More high grade cards seem to find their way to PSA for grading.
3.People want maximum dollar when they sell and they have the best chance of getting that with PSA. There are some instances of individual HOF cards that sell at reasonable levels between SGC and PSA but it’s rare. With high grade (rare, low pop) commons it’s not even close. I think if cards crossed over at a higher rate this might not be the case but I have NEVER had any luck crossing SGC (or GAI) cards to PSA and receiving the same grade (near mint or higher). I am not suggesting PSA’s grading standards are harsher I just think it’s become almost an ego thing with all of these guys!
4.Re-submissions are a big factor on PSA population numbers. The price difference between PSA 7’s and 8’s in the Goudey sets is staggering. If someone thinks they have a chance at an 8 they might submit the card several times. For example, I purchased Dave Forman’s 1933 PSA 7 #106 Lajoie from Mastro sometime in 2004. Dave had tried to sell me the card directly but we didn’t reach a deal (a shame, since we both would have saved money). I know Dave cracked this card and re-submitted it at least four times trying to get a PSA 8. Each time it came back as a 7. Thus, the pop report on the Lajoie PSA 7 is overstated by at least four.

In response to your comment about what’s low pop now staying low pop, I couldn’t agree with you more. I know some people think that dozens of high grade sets exist in raw condition but I can’t imagine they do. I have had an opportunity to view many fellow collectors “amazingly high grade” raw Goudey sets over the years and let’s just say that I don’t believe they would grade very well with PSA or SGC. The only exception to this might be Gerry Glasser’s cards which I have heard he is currently grading.

Mike

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

WP:

Where did you see a PSA 8 1933 Ruth #53 sell for under $40,000?

[Archive]

Posted By: Nick

There are collectors breaking out high-grade SGC cards to send them to PSA for the purposes of sale, because they know PSA generally draws a higher price. This selective submission of high-end cards to PSA will also inflate PSA's percentages in high grades on certain sets.

Considering the population disparity on '33 Goudeys, I doubt it's applicable there to any great extent.

However, I think a more accurate picture of grade leniency could be gained by taking the pop reports and knocking out the cards that people will get graded in any condition - Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, and a few other HOFers. If SGC is grading very few commons, it stands to reason that the average grade given by SGC will be lower - people have no problem sending in a P or F condition Ruth, but if a common is submitted in that condition, the submitter normally missed writing or a pinhole.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Another possible reason for PSA having graded more high-end cards is that when they started they were more or less the only game in town. And at that time people were not sending mid and low grade cards in for grading. It was almost exclusively the higher grade stuff that was getting submitted. In the past five years or so there has developed a marked for mid-grade and low-grade slabbed cards and that happens to coincide with the flourishing of SGC. Just another issue to consider.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

This is a good idea JimB. I have an PSA population report from 2000, when I get the chance, I will subtract those reports from the current PSA pop reports, and then compare it to SGC at that time. It will be interesting to see if the comparison changes. Of course it wouldn't change the question of whether the early graded cards were overgraded or not, but it would be another way to look at the issue. Maybe it will take me a couple of weeks or a month before I have the time to put that info together though.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

cmoking,
It would be interesting to see if and how the numbers have changed in past five years. I look forward to your data. The T206 set might be a good gauge.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Though I posted this on N172 thread, I think it is equally relavent here.

With regards to comparisons of grading standards, the ONLY way to determine whether SGC or PSA is tougher or more lenient is to send them both a large sample of the exact same cards and compare on the basis of the grades they assign to those cards. If I send a nm card to SGC and they grade it 84 and somebody else send a vg card to PSA and they grade it a 3, does that mean SGC is more leniant? Of course not. Drawing conclusions based on averages when they have graded completely different cards is utterly unscientific. There could be a hundred reasons to account for the discrepancy. Who knows what motivated the hundreds of different submitters to choose the grading company they did and how that all fleshes itself out in the overall numbers.

JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

I agree JimB. But it will cost someone alot of money to try an experiment like that...until someone does, we can only use the data we have to make some guesstimates. I'll try to remember doing the T206 also when I do the Goudeys...remind me if I forget when I post the Goudey info. Maybe early October it will be done. If anyone has an old pop report and feels like doing the same analysis, that would be great! (please?)